Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Just look at Iran as one example. Despite six United Nations
Security Council resolutions to the contrary, Iran stubbornly stuck to the
mantra that they have rights to enrich uranium and, ignoring all the fears that
this is the road to a nuclear weapon, it eventually paid off with the new deal
it struck with the appeasing Europeans, America, and a smiling Russia.

The lesson to be learned from this is it is possible to
overturn international law if you are the forceful partner and loudly repeat
your case.

Look at another example. International law professor, Eugene
Kantorovich, has written that the European Union is in default of its own
ruling on occupation by fostering and funding the Moroccan occupation of
Western Sahara. He reminds us that the EU provisionally approved a fisheries
agreement in November that extends into territory that Morocco is occupying in
breach of international law. Furthermore, Kantorovich has exposed the glaring
fact that the EU is actually paying Morocco for access to resources in the
Western Sahara.

That’s pretty amazing stuff when compared to the European
punishing stance over Israel’s building, and offering employment to Arab and
Jew in Judea and Samaria. Unless the EU retracts its resolutions, Israel is due
to be clobbered with European sanctions come January 1st 2014.

How is it possible to come to terms with this level of
hypocrisy and double standards? Perhaps Israel should adopt the stance of the
Iranians and Moroccans? Both
aggressively pursued their “rights” even when they had none under
international law, and the international community folded.

Compared with them, Israel’s rights are considerably more
legitimate in international law, no matter how much President Obama, John
Kerry, and the European Union wiggle.

Israel has far more legitimacy to the “disputed”
territories of Judea and Samaria. Instead of capitulating weakly to the false
charges of “occupied Palestinian land” it should boldly, affirmatively,
and repeatedly declare that Israel has full legitimate rights to the territories
written large in international law.

If Israeli politicians are weak on the justice of our cause,
they should allow international law experts, such as Professor Eugene
Kantorovich, champion the case.

As he said at a lecture, which is freely available online,
it doesn’t matter in international law if you are pro or anti Israel or the
Palestinians. It matters what has been approved and sanctioned in
internationally binding treaties. On this score, Israel can firmly claim
legitimacy over the territories dating back to the League of Nations Mandate of
1922 that was further enshrined in Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, as
well as other rulings. These still stand today.

This need not cancel out the necessity of solving the
problem of Palestinian Arabs, but it does prove title, the absence of which
leaves a cloud of uncertainty over the issue of whose land it is.

Monday, 25 November 2013

When you give the most dangerous regime in the world the
right to enrich uranium you give them the most significant step in obtaining
the most dangerous weapon in the world, namely a nuclear bomb.

This was done despite 6 UN Security Council resolutions
depriving Iran from any right to enrich uranium. As for the argument that they
need to enrich uranium for civil use of nuclear energy this is a flat lie. You
don’t need enriched uranium or to spin 18,000 centrifuges to provide civilian-use
energy. You only need it to make weapon grade fissile material.

They say that they had to cobble together this deal because
the Iranians refused to give up enriched uranium.

The West and Russia, led by America, have said “ignore the laws and the resolutions, despite the enormous dangers and risks to the world, we will break the law and grant untrustworthy Iran the right to enrich uranium because they demanded this condition, and we will ease sanctions.” How wrong-headed can they be?

This is like saying that
magistrates allow a thief to continue stealing in smaller quantities because he
refuses to give up stealing. It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd!

Kerry said, in a press conference that the agreement does
not say that the Iranians have the right to enrich uranium. He was being
disingenuous, to put it mildly, and he knows it.

Today, Iran has 19,462 centrifuges inside two uranium
enrichment plants. These machines could be used to make fuel for nuclear power
stations – or the core of a nuclear weapon.In
comparison, Pakistan which is reputed to already have 100 nuclear bombs only
has 6000 centrifuges. Iran today has three times more than Pakistan.

Let me be
detail specific. Most of the centrifuges are the new IE-2m type. These are
considered to be between 3 to 5 times more efficient than the recent IR-1 type.
Therefore, it needs far fewer centrifuges than before to spin low grade uranium
up to weapon grade uranium needed to produce bombs.

The deal says
Iran must stop using 9500. This leaves 10,000 spinning. That means Kerry is
wrong in what he said.

The deal says Iran will stop enriching uranium to the 20 per cent purity
that is close to weapons grade. Its existing stockpile of this material will be
converted into harmless oxide. There is nothing to stop Iran from reversing
the process of converting oxide back into enriched uranium.

The deal that was struck does not roll back Iran’s nuclear
weapon program. In places, it freezes it temporarily, such as stopping
construction of the heavy water plant in Arak. However, inspectors can only
visit some of the Iranian nuclear facilities and are prevented from visiting
others, including the secret plants where the world does not know what is going
on there. Remember that Iran is a lying, cheating, regime that has gotten
deception and deceit down to a fine art.

The only other roll-back is President Obama rolling back
President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ as applied to Iran. It is an integral
part of Obama fundamentally changing the world. He is so determined to reshape
the world in his image that he is prepared to gift the mad mullahs of Tehran
the right to enrich uranium despite the protests of America’s allies in the
region. If he is wrong, as we believe he is, this will be the biggest mistake
in world history. The disaster of Obamacare will be dwarfed in comparison to a
nuclear-armed Iran.

I have another take on Obama. It is well known in
Washington and the British Foreign Service circles that certain influential diplomats
have been educated as and prefer to be Arabists.

They seek to gain influence and base their careers in the
Arab world. That’s where the wealth is.

Obama, on the other hand, has a strong tendency to be an
Islamist. I am not saying that he is a Muslim. I am saying that his
foreign policy tends to favor Islamist regimes.

He gave his support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Syrian rebels
against Assad, the strong Islamist trend of Turkey, forgiving Palestinian
crimes and terrorists, but being tough on Israel, and now Iran, are prime
examples.

Israel fully expects the world, one day, to hear Obama make
yet another apology and say, “Everything would have been all right if Iran
hasn’t lied to me,” to paraphrase Neville Chamberlain after Hitler marched
into Poland.

That is at the heart of the friction between Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the West led by America. We know the real face of Iran. The West is
far too naïve. They have been taken for suckers, according to our perspective.
That is why this deal is a good deal for Iran and an awful deal for the world.
The centrifuges keep spinning. The only thing that is really being rolled back is
the sanctions. Iran gets economic relief as they continue to enrich. Maybe they
will not spin to 20% uranium as stipulated in the agreement, but maybe they
will. Can we be sure the inspectors get to visit every facility? Certainly not.
Iran is moments away from being a nuclear threshold state. This means it will
enable it to be weeks away from rushing to become a full nuclear state. Is that
what we really want from a messianic theology that predicts the End of Days
with the destruction of Israel to bring about the arrival of the Mahdi, their
holy messiah?

When they say that sanctions relief will only be in the
region of $7 Billion, they are lying. They have suspended sanctions on Iran’s
petrochemical exports, gold, and other precious metals. Iran’s efforts to sell
crude oil will not be impeded. They can sell auto parts. They can install and
supply aircraft parts. Major
international companies will again start trading with Iran as Europe and
America will turn a blind eye to their dealings.

When the deal says that Iran cannot enrich to above 5% means
they have given Iran the right to enrich.
What these negotiators have done is made it impossible to reverse this
ruling, but also made it impossible to prevent any other regime from enriching
uranium. You cannot say it’s OK for Iran to enrich but Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Turkey, Iraq, Syria, cannot. Obama has given the green light for nuclear
proliferation, a nuclear power race, and that is deadly dangerous.

Let me give you another perspective that is troubling to
Israel.

Israel says it has the
right, under international law, to build houses in Judea & Samaria, but
what do the same Europeans led by Catherine Ashton and America’s Obama and
Kerry say? “Over our dead body! Never! Don’t you dare to do it otherwise we
will impose heavy sanctions, isolate you, and encourage the Palestinians to
commit terror against you.” Do you see
the immoral equivalence of the two scenarios? It’s OK for Iran to keep its nuclear facilities in place, but Israel
is guilty of heinous international crimes if it builds in Jewish towns like
Ariel and Maale Adumim, or gives employment to Arabs and Jews.

The Obama Administration, which failed in everything it
turned its hand to, and the EU under Catherine Ashton, think they know what is
good for Israel both with Iran and the Palestinians. In both cases, they close
their eyes to the facts and the reality of what both regimes stand for. Both
continue to call for “Death to Israel.” Both employ terror and
incitement against the Jewish state. Both hate America, despite their
diplomatic smiles.

Had America been tough with Iran, Israel may have gambled on
American pressure to surrender its rights to the Palestinians in the current
peace talks knowing it had the assertive backing of America. Should the
Palestinians prove themselves to be as deceptive and untrustworthy as the Iranians.
Let’s be honest, there is nothing stopping a future Palestinian state to be any
less a rogue state as Iran and not keep its commitments. But now, Israel would be foolish to trust
American commitments after witnessing their performance in Geneva, and in the
recent past.

At this moment in time, Syria still retains its chemical
weapons despite its promises. Iran retains its infrastructure to develop a
nuclear weapon. The Palestinians retain the desire and the weapons to launch
massive terror against Israel. So does Hezbollah in Lebanon. All this against the
backdrop of a weakening America in the Middle East. Israel will not be willing
to put its security and faith in an American Administration that is gambling
Israel’s fate.

I want to make this clear. Iran is already a nuclear
threshold state. It reached this position due to the inept and slow attitude of
the international diplomatic community to respond to the warnings of Israel for
more than a decade.

Before this Geneva agreement, Iran was a nuclear threshold
state with leper status in the world. After this deal, Iran is now a nuclear
threshold state with international legitimacy.

The world, under America’s leadership, has let this rogue
regime off the ropes.

Israel cannot forget that, while the negotiators were
talking in Geneva, Iran’s Supreme leader, Khameni, was telling his people that
Israel is a rabid dog that is doomed to collapse, while the crowd was chanting “Death
to America!”

There is Jewish saying, born of bitter experience. “Always
believe the threats of your enemy more than the promises of your friends.”

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Roger Cukierman, the president of the French Jewish
community organization, CRIF, in his article “Fighting three kinds of
AntiSemitism,” (Jerusalem Post, October 20, 2013) spoke of three types of
Anti-Semitism - the far Right, BDS campaigns, European Muslim immigrants, but
there is a fourth kind. It is Christian
anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism exemplified by a recent British Methodist
Church/BDS Movement’s anti-Israel boycott survey,

and by statements by church leaders in countries like South
Africa.

Why is the Methodist-led boycott an act of Anti-Semitism?
Anti-Semitism is anti-Jewish behavior in all its forms. Their one-sided boycott campaign attempting
to inflict damage on Israel applied exclusively and discriminatorily against
the Jewish state, is a clear act of anti-Jewish behavior.

See how far the Methodist Church has strayed from its
founding ethics. Based on the teachings of John and Charles Wesley, Methodism
is grounded in biblical scriptures that believe in the ingathering of the
Jewish people to the Holy Land. Read one of Charles Wesley’s hymns;

“O that the chosen band might now their brethren bring

And gathered out of every land present to Zion’s King.

Of all the ancient race not one be left behind

But each impelled by secret grace his way to Canaan find!

We know it must be done for God hath spoke the word

All Israel shall their Saviour own to their first state restored.

Rebuilt by His command, Jerusalem shall rise

Her Temple on Moriah stand again, and touch the skies.”

The Methodist Church today, and other churches, have turned
away from Zion’s King and adopted the Kairos Palestine Document.

The United Methodist Kairos Response, adopted at the UMC
General Conference of 2012, is a long screed of sympathy and support for the
Palestinian cause. It fails to give one word of understanding or support to
Jewish and Israeli suffering at the hands of Palestinian violence, terror, and
rejectionism. The Methodists boycott Zionism and replace it with Palestinian
land. They have sold their birthright for no gain and no glory. It says less
about Israel and more about the fatal drift of the Methodist Church from their
founding faith into the arms of those calling for Israel’s destruction.

Other European Christian bodies isolating Israel for their wrath
including the Swedish Lutheran Church, the Catholic Sacred Heart College in
Belgium, the Irish Catholic Troicaire, the Church of Scotland, the Dutch
Interchurch Organization, Christian Aid, the Quakers, and increasingly the
Church of Sweden.

In South Africa, the Council of Churches has been dogmatically anti-Israel.

In “Demonizing Israel and the Jews,” Manfred
Gerstenfeld wrote “Christian anti-Semitism is far from dead. The current
external appearance of that anti-Semitism is mainly that of anti-Israelism. You
can call it recycled and redirected Christian anti-Semitism.”

The Kairos
Document,authored by Anglican cleric Naim Ateek through his Sabeel Centre in
Jerusalem, demonizes Israel using ancient anti-Semitic imagery.

Ateek
wrote, “Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians
around him.” He envisioned “hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout
the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified”.

The
Kairos Palestine Document calls for boycotts against Israel, and denies the
Jewish historical connection to Israel. As such it is inconsistent with efforts
to reach a two-state solution. It was
adopted by the World Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church of the United
States, and the United Methodist Church, and the South African Council of
Churches.

Replacement theologists found salvation in the Kairos
Palestine Document which removes biblical references to Jewish rights in the
Holy Land, including Old Testament references to the Jewish people and the
land, replacing Jewish Israel with Arab Palestine.

As Reverend Malcolm Hedding of the International Christian
Embassy in Jerusalem wrote “Replacement theology rests chiefly on the idea that
the whole or part of the Abrahamic Covenant has been abolished, for it is this
Covenant that promises to Israel eternal ownership of the land of Canaan.”For some Christians, “Replacement theology removes from Israel a
national destiny in the land of Canaan because of her rejection of Jesus’
Messianic credentials. “

“Kairos” is a Greek word meaning the right or
opportune moment. It enables Anti-Semitic Christians to find their way out of
the shame and guilt of the Holocaust to, once again, openly espouse their
anti-Jewish dogma in anti-Zionist terms.

In his book “Our Hands
are Stained With Blood,” Dr.
Michael Brown states that replacement theology was among the primary
theological and ideological foundations of the Spanish Inquisition and the
expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
Jews during the crusades and, ultimately, the Holocaust. Brown pivots the Spanish Inquisition as the
Catholic replacement theology Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle Ages with the
Nazi Holocaust which granted replacement theologists further ‘proof’
that G-d had abandoned the Jews as His Chosen People.

Theologian researcher, Kendall Soulen, commenting on the events of the
Holocaust and the establishment of the Jewish state, writes, “Under the new
conditions created by these events, Christian churches have begun to consider
anew their relation to the God of Israel and the Israel of God in the light of
the Scriptures and the gospel about Jesus.” Some saw the resurrection of
Israel out of the ashes of the Holocaust as a vision of biblical promise, while
others sought an opposite interpretation which was given to them in the Kairos
Document.

The
Simon Weisenthal Center called the document “a revisionist document of hatred for Israel
and contempt of Jews.”

Reverend Todd Baker argues against the
Christian anti-Semitic interpretation of Matthew 27:25 that view the Jewish
People as permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of G-d. “His blood
shall be upon us and on our children.” Misinterpretation, he claims, has
helped spawn Christian anti-Semitism via the Crusades, the Inquisition, the
Holocaust, and recent Replacement Theology.

The World Council of Churches, the Lutheran Church in
America call the Kairos Palestine Document as “the word of truth.” Had
they studied this “truth” they would see that it calls for the return of
Palestinian refugees to all of Palestine, including Israel.

They support the Palestinian BDS National Committee which
continues to reject the UN Partition Plan of 1948, calls for the return of
Palestinian Arabs “to their original home, does not forget the Nakba,” and
states “this land is our land and it is incumbent upon us to defend it
and reclaim it.”

People like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the South African
Council of Churches have a black liberation theology in which they falsely
position Palestinian Arabs as ‘black’ and Israeli Jews as ‘white.’ Nothing can
be further from the truth. Anyone who visits Israel, or knows anything about
Israel, appreciates it as the Rainbow Nation of the Middle East, but grievous
South African policy decisions and damaging official statements are based on
this form of replacement theology.

The Palestinian Authority calls for a future state that will
be “Judenrein” and refuse to acknowledge Israel as the national home of
the Jewish People. In parallel, Hamas refuses to recognize Israel in any form,
and its Charter calls to kill Jews. The Kairos supporters apparently have no
problem with this, certainly not to the point of publicly objecting to it, or
calling for sanctions against Palestinians until they adopt a language of
compromise. Replacement theologists need
to believe Palestinian lies and tales of victimhood. It locks into their dogmatic
belief system.

Simply put, they deny the Jews their biblical heritage yet
champion Palestinian rights to the land.

When concern for Palestinian rights comes with denial of Israel’s
rights by any religious body, this is the fourth kind of Anti-Semitism. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Grand Mufti,
Haj Amin al-Husseini, allying with Hitler for the Final Solution of the Jewish
Problem in the Middle East, or Christian groups allying with the BDS Movement
or Israel Apartheid Week desiring the elimination of Israel by non-violent
delegitimization, they add up to the same thing – Anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism
and secondary anti-Semitism often overlap when comparisons are made between Nazis
and Israeli politics or between Holocaust victims and the Palestinians.

Dr. Manfred
Gerstenfeld, in his new book, “Demonizing Israel and the Jews,” refers
to “humanitarian racists”describing people or groups who criticize Israel “but
remain silent about the Islamofacist character of Hamas who call for killing
Jews, and the glorification of murderers of Israelis by the Palestinian
Authority. Christian anti-Semitism is far from dead. The current external
appearance of that anti-Semitism is mainly that of anti-Israelism. You can call
it recycled."

Unquestionably the Spanish Inquisition was one of the
greatest acts of Christian anti-Semitism. It began with the Catholic Church expelling
the Jews of Spain and Portugal. It quickly led to two centuries of persecution
and slaughter. The Spanish Inquisition was greater in its global reach, and much
longer in its timeframe, than the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany.

Replacement theology reflects a Christian thinking that
includes malignant anti-Jewish hatred. This has been the case throughout the
history of the church.

In “An Analysis of Neo-Replacement
Theology,” Michael J. Vlach writes, “ Replacement Theology have been
seriously affected by two twentieth-century developments—the Holocaust and the
establishment of the modern state of Israel. According to Irvin J. Borowsky,
‘Within Christendom since the time of Hitler, there has existed a widespread
reaction of shock and soul-searching concerning the Holocaust.’”

Vlach asks what Christian
replacement theologists make of the persistence of the Jewish people? What of
Israel’s land and state? The existence
of Israel becomes a bone of contention in a theological sense. Do the misery
and suffering of Israel in the past and present prove that God’s doom has
rested and will rest upon her, as has been alleged time and again in so-called
Christian theology? Or is Israel’s resurrection and existence God’s finger in
history, that Israel is the object of His special providence and the proof Israel’s
future that was foretold by Israel’s ancient prophets and the Bible?

A seismic rift has taken place
within Christianity between those that acknowledge biblical teachings and those
who dogmatically hold firm to replacement theology.

Whether by murder, expulsion, or conversion, the Christian denial
of Jewish rights and Jewish existence, has been the constant threat to the
Jewish people. It continues today in the name of anti-Zionism.

Barry Shaw is the Special Consultant on Delegitimization
Issues to The Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya Academic College.

Sunday, 3 November 2013

Three men, one aged 23, the other two aged 17, were arrested as part of a gang that viciously attacked
five Jews in the Bondi district of Sydney on October 25, 2013.

Although this was a rare anti-Semitic violent attack in Australia,
statistics show there are over five hundred anti-Jewish incidents a year in
Australia.

Jews have been an integral part of Australia since its
inception as in no other nation.

The first Jews to arrive in Australia, like so many of its
pioneers, were prisoners shipped there by the British who looked on Australia
as a penal colony. Today, the Jewish population numbers 120,000, making it the
ninth biggest Jewish community in the world.

Sydney’s Jewish life developed with the help of Joseph
Barrow Montefiore, a cousin of Sir Moses Montefiore. It built the first
synagogue in Australia in 1844. This was quickly followed by Hobart on the
island of Tasmania, Launceston, Melbourne, and Adelaide.

Australia remains the only nation, apart from Israel, whose
founding fathers included Jews. As a
result, Jews were treated as equal citizens from the beginning. Jews were free
to participate in cultural, economic, and political life of Australia without
restriction. Already in the nineteenth century Jews had reached high positions
such as speaker of Parliament, speaker of the house of Representatives, Premier
of the State of South Australia, and the mayor of Melbourne.

The Jewish population was boosted at the turn of the century
by refugees fleeing the pogroms of Russia and Poland. The Second World War added a further
injection of Jewish immigration to Australia with some seven thousand entering
the country on visas before the outbreak of the war. As an outcome of the
infamous Evian Conference of 1938, Australia generously agreed to accept the
greatest number of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. This was followed by a
further flow of refugees in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Surprisingly,
Australia has the highest percentage of Holocaust survivors of any diaspora
community. Further influx came in 1989 from South African Jews and later from
Jews released from the former Soviet Union.

Jews have participated and contributed to the pioneering
settlement and development of Australia. Isaac Nathan is considered to be the
father of Australian music. Sir Isaac Isaacs was the first Australian
Governor-General. Sir John Monash led Australian forces in World War One. He
was the first Major-General in the Australian Army, followed by Paul Cullen
and, in 2009, neuro-surgeon Jeffrey Rosenfeld, a cousin of Monash, was promoted
to that rank.

Israel Smith became the first Jew to win the Victoria Cross
for bravery in battle. Smith had emigrated to Australia from Manchester,
England, but returned to Britain to join the Manchester Regiment at the
outbreak of the First World War. He was wounded five times and returned to
Australia after the war.

Australia has a place in local history in Israel. On October
31, 1917, the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade captured Beer Sheba
from the Turks paving the way to the liberation of Jerusalem by General
Allenby.

On September 25, 1918, the Australian Light Horse made the
last cavalry charge of World War One by the banks of the Sea of Galilee at
Tsemach and captured the railway station in the Jezreel valley. A memorial can
be seen to this exploit in the gardens of college of Tsemach.

It is interesting to note that the famous Israeli general,
Moshe Dayan, lost his eye fighting alongside Australian troops against the
Vichy French in Lebanon in 1941. He was awarded an Australian military honor
for his action.

Australia has come a long way from its days as a penal
colony. Today, it has a strict immigration policy based on merit and identity
with the cultural and national norms of the country. It has taken a strong
position on illegal migrants. As such, it shares a meeting of minds with
Israel.

The Australian Jewish community is very supportive of Israel
and have been active is Jews in distress around the world, including past
campaigns on behalf of Soviet and Ethiopian Jewry. There are a number of active
Zionist organizations.

Australia’s government has always been a staunch ally and
supporter of Israel. They perceive shared values and problems. Unlike many
countries, leading Australian politicians have publicly acted and declared
their firm opposition to the boycott movement in their country. In July, 2011,
Australia’s then Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, joined Labour Parliamentarian
and Chairman of Australia’s Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Committee,
Michael Danby, inside the Max Brenner chocolate shop in Melbourne in a public
act of solidarity with the store that was being picketed by pro-Palestinian
activists. Rudd said at the time, “I
don’t think in 21st-century Australia there is a place for the attempted
boycott of a Jewish business. I thought we had learned that from history.”

In July, 2012,
several prominent Labour Party members in New South Wales successfully blocked
a move by the Green party in favor of an anti-Israel boycott resolution.

In April, 2013,
Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, denounced pro-Palestinian activists
as their protests against the opening of a Max Brenner shop was marred by
anti-Jewish and Holocaust-denying statements and material, saying that
Australia had always had firm opposition to the BDS Movement. Liberal Party
deputy leader, Julie Bishop, promised to cut off federal grants to any
individual and institution that supports the BDS campaign. If only European
governments would follow Australia’s example.

As in most
countries, the nest of anti-Israel radicalism can be found in Australia in the
universities. Israeli legal action organization, Shurat HaDin, has filed a
class action complaint, under the Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975
against a Sydney professor’s participation and public support for an academic
boycott against Israeli universities.

In his letter,
Shurat HaDin Australian lawyer, Alexander Hamilton, pointed out that it was unlawful for anyone “to do any
act involving a distinction, exclusion, or preference based on race, national,
or ethnic origin which has the purpose…of nullifying or impairing…fundamental
freedom in the…economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

It was felt
that staunch support for Israel was wavering under a Rudd leadership, but the
new Conservative government
of Tony Abbott, in coalition with Julie Bishop, is expected to continue
Australia’s firm support of Israel and to maintain the denial of funding to any
anti-Israel boycott attempt. In a pre-election statement, Abbott said,

“we are firmly committed to restoring the Australia- Israeli friendship to the strength it enjoyed under the [John] Howard government.”

As the headline
in “The Australian” national newspaper on September 26, 2013, proudly
heralded, “Unstinting Support for Israel Back in Place.”

Barry Shaw is the
Special Consultant on Delegitimization Issues to The Strategic Dialogue Center,
Netanya Academic College.